California is gonna

[MeBelle]

But FYI, the Republican's do control both of the two legislative bodies via minority rule-----IOW's taxes don't get raised in CA without Republican support. Do you disagree with that sentence?

Disagree indeed. It's the voters who decide if taxes get raised, not legislative bodies.
I'm seeing you don't know too much as to how things work in Cali...you know, the people's initiative and all.

 

[yidnar]

But smoking pot is fun!!!!

California born and raised, proud of it. Cali gettin stuff done.

by making tax payers across the country pay for your bullshit programs !!

 

[Meister]

I've shown that the CA purse strings are controlled by the Republican minority via the Assembly and the
Senate -- so exactly, which Republican asswipes are you referring to?

Yes, the republicans own California...

Don't be ridiculous Republicans don't own CA, where'd you ever come up with that? Do you have proof?

But FYI, the Republican's do control both of the two legislative bodies via minority rule-----IOW's taxes don't get raised in CA without Republican support. Do you disagree with that sentence?

Would you agree that the liberals rule the day in Ca., let's see where you're at?

 

[Star]

But FYI, the Republican's do control both of the two legislative bodies via minority rule-----IOW's taxes don't get raised in CA without Republican support. Do you disagree with that sentence?

Disagree indeed. It's the voters who decide if taxes get raised, not legislative bodies.
I'm seeing you don't know too much as to how things work in Cali...you know, the people's initiative and all.

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

 

[Meister]

But FYI, the Republican's do control both of the two legislative bodies via minority rule-----IOW's taxes don't get raised in CA without Republican support. Do you disagree with that sentence?

Disagree indeed. It's the voters who decide if taxes get raised, not legislative bodies.
I'm seeing you don't know too much as to how things work in Cali...you know, the people's initiative and all.

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

Prop. 13 was the best thing to happen for fixed income home owners in Ca.....make no mistake about that. Jarvis was a visionary on that issue.

 

[Star]

Disagree indeed. It's the voters who decide if taxes get raised, not legislative bodies.
I'm seeing you don't know too much as to how things work in Cali...you know, the people's initiative and all.

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

Prop. 13 was the best thing to happen for fixed income home owners in Ca.....make no mistake about that. Jarvis was a visionary on that issue.

Not according to economists that have studied the effects of Prop 13. According to economist Christopher Thornberg, what you're claiming is just flat out-------"Wrong. This story is historically untrue, logically incorrect, and has nothing to do with most of what Prop 13 does anyway.

First, thinking logically, when people’s property taxes go up, it’s because the value of their property has increased. In other words, they are being asked to contribute more because they have more. Using current tax rates, your taxes would go up by $2,500 per year, if the value of the property you own and live in increased by $200,000. Fixed income? Your household just earned $200,000 because you happened to own a house at the right time. Financially speaking, this is a great deal—that $200,000 would cost a lot more annually if borrowed from a bank.
I’m not saying the elderly should pay more. I am only arguing that they can afford to pay as much as anyone else in the neighborhood.

When I pointed this out to one supporter, their reply was: “So what? Its paper money.” Really? I invest in some hedge funds. Annually, I receive a K-1 from the funds that I turn over to my accountant. And guess what? I have to pay taxes on my ‘paper money’ gains. That’s the way it works. No one likes to pay taxes, but we have to pitch in fairly. And even if on a fixed income, in today’s liquid mortgage market, reverse mortgages and home equity lines of credit are more than available and allow people to access that cash. Californians were more than willing to use this ‘paper money’ to fund all sorts of purchases over the last bubble."

BTW, there is no empirical evidence that there were a whole bunch-o-foreclosures on the elderly or anyone else prior to Prop 13. In 1979 the foreclosure rate in CA was 4/10ths of 1% for the next 25 years it was never lower, IOW instead of preventing foreclosures, Prop 13 seems to have coincided with an increase in foreclosures.

 

[Foxfyre]

The insanity of California 'sin' taxes is multiplied many times over, culminating in the ultimate insantiy that is the U.S. federal tax code. The fact that so-called 'sin taxes' are more acceptable at all levels of government than other forms of taxes doesn't seem to affect the disconnect that occurs.

Not only do we subsidze tobacco farming at hundreds of millions of dollars, but some years ago, we also initiated a buy out program that now pays tobacco farmers something like $10 billion per year to transition into other crops or grow nothing. The $10 billion doesn't cost the taxpayers directly though as it is paid by manufacturors and importers of tobacco products in exchange for not having to pay part of a health-based court settlement.

Being forgiven the court settlement, however, frees the manufacturers to step up production AND import more tobacco and tobacco products.

There is much truth in the old saw that if you want to increase something, subsidize it, and if you want to decrease something, tax it.

The only problem is you decrease it to the point you aren't collecting enough taxes, you have to tax it more or look elsewhere for all those lovely revenues you have become accustomed to but are no longer getting.

 

[Meister]

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

Prop. 13 was the best thing to happen for fixed income home owners in Ca.....make no mistake about that. Jarvis was a visionary on that issue.

Not according to economists that have studied the effects of Prop 13. According to economist Christopher Thornberg, what you're claiming is just flat out-------"Wrong. This story is historically untrue, logically incorrect, and has nothing to do with most of what Prop 13 does anyway.

First, thinking logically, when people’s property taxes go up, it’s because the value of their property has increased. In other words, they are being asked to contribute more because they have more. Using current tax rates, your taxes would go up by $2,500 per year, if the value of the property you own and live in increased by $200,000. Fixed income? Your household just earned $200,000 because you happened to own a house at the right time. Financially speaking, this is a great deal—that $200,000 would cost a lot more annually if borrowed from a bank.
I’m not saying the elderly should pay more. I am only arguing that they can afford to pay as much as anyone else in the neighborhood.

When I pointed this out to one supporter, their reply was: “So what? Its paper money.” Really? I invest in some hedge funds. Annually, I receive a K-1 from the funds that I turn over to my accountant. And guess what? I have to pay taxes on my ‘paper money’ gains. That’s the way it works. No one likes to pay taxes, but we have to pitch in fairly. And even if on a fixed income, in today’s liquid mortgage market, reverse mortgages and home equity lines of credit are more than available and allow people to access that cash. Californians were more than willing to use this ‘paper money’ to fund all sorts of purchases over the last bubble."

BTW, there is no empirical evidence that there were a whole bunch-o-foreclosures on the elderly or anyone else prior to Prop 13. In 1979 the foreclosure rate in CA was 4/10ths of 1% for the next 25 years it was never lower, IOW instead of preventing foreclosures, Prop 13 seems to have coincided with an increase in foreclosures.

Prior to prop 13 the housing market in Ca. hadn't had a huge explosion of Housing prices, Star. Could you imagine people that bought their houses in the 50's and 60's at 18,000-25,000 have their homes eventually appraised at 125,000 then 200,00 then 450,000? people living off of SS or SS and working PT wouldn't have been able to absorb the rise in property taxes.
But, keep thinking what you want, most people that HAVE lived through those years know exactly what I mean.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I’m not saying the elderly should pay more. I am only arguing that they can afford to pay as much as anyone else in the neighborhood.

how?..... when they are on a fixed income and the guy down the street is still working?..... makes sense to me.....

 

[MeBelle]

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.

Too bad if it's cumbersome in your opinion, the initiative process is law. Without it, residents would be legislated into the poor house.
Prop 13 was enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process.

Why do you want the elderly taxed out of their homes?

 

[MeBelle]

First, thinking logically, when people’s property taxes go up, it’s because the value of their property has increased. In other words, they are being asked to contribute more because they have more. Using current tax rates, your taxes would go up by $2,500 per year, if the value of the property you own and live in increased by $200,000. Fixed income? Your household just earned $200,000 because you happened to own a house at the right time. Financially speaking, this is a great deal—that $200,000 would cost a lot more annually if borrowed from a bank.

I’m not saying the elderly should pay more. I am only arguing that they can afford to pay as much as anyone else in the neighborhood.

Thinking logically, remember the insane housing bubble and when prices nose dived. THEN how do the elderly pay more taxes when their home is worth less? Borrowing temporary home equity leaves those who did so, in the ditch. Your household didn't 'earn' squat. It would be listed as a positive on your net worth balance sheet, but if sold at inflated prices, there would be no taxes to pay, via IRS, and your net worth would be in the negative.

BTW, there is no empirical evidence that there were a whole bunch-o-foreclosures on the elderly or anyone else prior to Prop 13. In 1979 the foreclosure rate in CA was 4/10ths of 1% for the next 25 years it was never lower, IOW instead of preventing foreclosures, Prop 13 seems to have coincided with an increase in foreclosures.

Where does anyone claim foreclosures on the elderly before Prop 13? Prop 13 was preventative.

 

[Trajan]

But FYI, the Republican's do control both of the two legislative bodies via minority rule-----IOW's taxes don't get raised in CA without Republican support. Do you disagree with that sentence?

Disagree indeed. It's the voters who decide if taxes get raised, not legislative bodies.
I'm seeing you don't know too much as to how things work in Cali...you know, the people's initiative and all.

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.

so basically, you would rather have it wherein the majority could just roll over the minority, why then even bother having an opposition party who shows up?

You do know that Californians voted to have it this way? Right?

And your last statement which I bolded is a laugh......it never amazes me the number of a ways a democrat will whine. even a supra majority would not ( and has not been) enough, if they could not herd their own party to vote for what the leadership wants its somehow always someone elses fault too....

 

[Meister]

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

Prop. 13 was the best thing to happen for fixed income home owners in Ca.....make no mistake about that. Jarvis was a visionary on that issue.

Not according to economists that have studied the effects of Prop 13. According to economist Christopher Thornberg, what you're claiming is just flat out-------"Wrong. This story is historically untrue, logically incorrect, and has nothing to do with most of what Prop 13 does anyway.

First, thinking logically, when people’s property taxes go up, it’s because the value of their property has increased. In other words, they are being asked to contribute more because they have more. Using current tax rates, your taxes would go up by $2,500 per year, if the value of the property you own and live in increased by $200,000. Fixed income? Your household just earned $200,000 because you happened to own a house at the right time. Financially speaking, this is a great deal—that $200,000 would cost a lot more annually if borrowed from a bank.
I’m not saying the elderly should pay more. I am only arguing that they can afford to pay as much as anyone else in the neighborhood.

When I pointed this out to one supporter, their reply was: “So what? Its paper money.” Really? I invest in some hedge funds. Annually, I receive a K-1 from the funds that I turn over to my accountant. And guess what? I have to pay taxes on my ‘paper money’ gains. That’s the way it works. No one likes to pay taxes, but we have to pitch in fairly. And even if on a fixed income, in today’s liquid mortgage market, reverse mortgages and home equity lines of credit are more than available and allow people to access that cash. Californians were more than willing to use this ‘paper money’ to fund all sorts of purchases over the last bubble."

BTW, there is no empirical evidence that there were a whole bunch-o-foreclosures on the elderly or anyone else prior to Prop 13. In 1979 the foreclosure rate in CA was 4/10ths of 1% for the next 25 years it was never lower, IOW instead of preventing foreclosures, Prop 13 seems to have coincided with an increase in foreclosures.

Thinking logically, that 200,000 is only earned if you realize that gain by selling...it means nothing on paper when you're still living in that home.

 

[Star]

Disagree indeed. It's the voters who decide if taxes get raised, not legislative bodies.
I'm seeing you don't know too much as to how things work in Cali...you know, the people's initiative and all.

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.

so basically, you would rather have it wherein the majority could just roll over the minority, why then even bother having an opposition party who shows up?

You do know that Californians voted to have it this way? Right?

And your last statement which I bolded is a laugh......it never amazes me the number of a ways a democrat will whine. even a supra majority would not ( and has not been) enough, if they could not herd their own party to vote for what the leadership wants its somehow always someone elses fault too....

By acknowledging that the majority in CA is not "rolling over" the minority, you're agreeing that the majority has been stalemated by the minority party (Republicans) who control the purse strings in CA via the ⅔ majority requirement.

So I have to ask, how is minority rule in CA working out?

If as the righty's on this thread have pointed out, CA is an unfriendly place for business, have you asked yourself why? "✄snip> Prop 13’s limitation has given us what are now considered to be ‘friendly’ property taxes in California and shifted the burden to business unfriendly corporate and income taxes.

Texas is often cited as a business friendly location, particularly because they don’t have a personal income tax at all. But, as it turns out, if we took Texas’ revenue system and applied it to California, taxes paid would fall by less than $2 billion (that’s about 2% of our overall general fund revenues, and slightly over 1% of overall state and local revenues – big whoop). This is because Texas relies far more heavily on property taxes – the average property tax rate paid in Texas is well over twice what is paid in California.

Not only is California’s over-reliance on personal income taxes business unfriendly, it also leads to hyper cyclical revenue conditions – when times are good, the cash flow is ample, but when the economy slows, the deficits are devastating. And along the way, the state over-commits to expanding various public programs and hands out ever more generous perks to employees. When the economy turns sour, it creates terrible conditions as programs are dismantled and funding for anything even remotely discretionary gets pushed to the back burner.

We have watched this cycle run its course twice over the past 15 years, and the state’s educational system and infrastructure have both suffered enormously because of it. Want to know why the University of Texas at Austin is prospering while the world famous University of California campuses continue to diminish in quality? Thank Howard Jarvis and his proposition."

Californian's that are not happy with the business climate that has been created in CA since Prop 13 passed in 1978 have only themselves and their support for Prop 13 to blame. As the article that I C&Ped points out, Texas tax laws are thought to be business friendly but-----but check it out, "Texas' projected 2012 budget shortfall is equal to 31.5 percent of its 2011 budget, versus 29.3 percent for California, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities."

 

[Trajan]

I’m not saying the elderly should pay more. I am only arguing that they can afford to pay as much as anyone else in the neighborhood.

how?..... when they are on a fixed income and the guy down the street is still working?..... makes sense to me.....

that statement tells you all you need to know, he makes no sense and will say anything to prop a senseless, and mangled, negated argument.

 

[Trajan]

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.




Proponents of tax increases here have been forced to use the initiative process because California law requires a tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, a legacy of Proposition 13, and Republicans have made clear they will not give Democrats the votes to cross that threshold. “The initiative process is one of the reasons California has issues, but it also allows changes to happen if the Legislature has difficulty acting,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire investor who is the head of the Think Long Committee.

Under a measure approved this year, all initiatives must appear on a general election ballot. Tax increase proponents have concluded that November 2012, with a high Democratic turnout expected in a presidential election, would be more favorable for these initiatives than in a nonpresidential year, when opponents of tax increases are considered more likely to vote.

“The November 2012 ballot is going to be the political equivalent of bumper cars,” Mr. Schnur said. “What we have seen historically is that voters who are overwhelmed or overloaded with things tend to vote ‘no’ on everything.”

The CA initiative process is so cumbersome, it can at times be unwieldy. In a representative democracy the initiative process should only be necessary when our representatives are unresponsive to the people. In CA our representatives are unresponsive to the majority because the legislature has been minority controlled since Proposition 13 passed in 1978.

so basically, you would rather have it wherein the majority could just roll over the minority, why then even bother having an opposition party who shows up?

You do know that Californians voted to have it this way? Right?

And your last statement which I bolded is a laugh......it never amazes me the number of a ways a democrat will whine. even a supra majority would not ( and has not been) enough, if they could not herd their own party to vote for what the leadership wants its somehow always someone elses fault too....

By acknowledging that the majority in CA is not "rolling over" the minority, you're agreeing that the majority has been stalemated by the minority party (Republicans) who control the purse strings in CA via the ⅔ majority requirement.

So I have to ask, how is minority rule in CA working out?

If as the righty's on this thread have pointed out, CA is an unfriendly place for business, have you asked yourself why? "✄snip> Prop 13’s limitation has given us what are now considered to be ‘friendly’ property taxes in California and shifted the burden to business unfriendly corporate and income taxes.

Texas is often cited as a business friendly location, particularly because they don’t have a personal income tax at all. But, as it turns out, if we took Texas’ revenue system and applied it to California, taxes paid would fall by less than $2 billion (that’s about 2% of our overall general fund revenues, and slightly over 1% of overall state and local revenues – big whoop). This is because Texas relies far more heavily on property taxes – the average property tax rate paid in Texas is well over twice what is paid in California.

Not only is California’s over-reliance on personal income taxes business unfriendly, it also leads to hyper cyclical revenue conditions – when times are good, the cash flow is ample, but when the economy slows, the deficits are devastating. And along the way, the state over-commits to expanding various public programs and hands out ever more generous perks to employees. When the economy turns sour, it creates terrible conditions as programs are dismantled and funding for anything even remotely discretionary gets pushed to the back burner.

We have watched this cycle run its course twice over the past 15 years, and the state’s educational system and infrastructure have both suffered enormously because of it. Want to know why the University of Texas at Austin is prospering while the world famous University of California campuses continue to diminish in quality? Thank Howard Jarvis and his proposition."

Californian's that are not happy with the business climate that has been created in CA since Prop 13 passed in 1978 have only themselves and their support for Prop 13 to blame. As the article that I C&Ped points out, Texas tax laws are thought to be business friendly but-----but check it out, "Texas' projected 2012 budget shortfall is equal to 31.5 percent of its 2011 budget, versus 29.3 percent for California, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities."

its working out everywhere there is a minority and majority, which is, everywhere. see, theres this thing called compromise...ever heard of it? or is that just a term phrase thats used when the dems are in the minority?and your answer addresses nothing in my post....

 

[Foxfyre]

It goes without saying that all initiatives and proposals and taxes and fees proposed Republicans are terrible if you are a Democrat.

And you will probably oppose initiatives and proposals and taxes and fees proposed by Democrats if you are a Republican.

That is why we have two political parties. Opposing concepts. Opposing ideas. Opposing processes.

But for the life of me, I can't see the rationale for how the when the Republicans have the power in Congress and the Whitehouse, everything bad that happens is all the Republicans fault.

But when the Democrats have the power in Congress and the Whitehouse, everything bad that happens is still all the Republicans fault.

 

[cutter]

But smoking pot is fun!!!!

California born and raised, proud of it. Cali gettin stuff done.

I too was born and raised in cali. At 65yrs of age I moved to Oregon. The libs killed paradise and I couldn't stand it anymore. Moving was the best thing I ever did.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I’m not saying the elderly should pay more. I am only arguing that they can afford to pay as much as anyone else in the neighborhood.

how?..... when they are on a fixed income and the guy down the street is still working?..... makes sense to me.....

that statement tells you all you need to know, he makes no sense and will say anything to prop a senseless, and mangled, negated argument.

he is also not mentioning that this State is Democrat heavy in the Electorate,who have voted down many tax raising Initiatives,somehow that equates to Republicans controlling the State purse strings.....the guy sounds like another Dean.....its all those nasty Republicans fault.....what else could it be?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

It goes without saying that all initiatives and proposals and taxes and fees proposed Republicans are terrible if you are a Democrat.

And you will probably oppose initiatives and proposals and taxes and fees proposed by Democrats if you are a Republican.

That is why we have two political parties. Opposing concepts. Opposing ideas. Opposing processes.

But for the life of me, I can't see the rationale for how the when the Republicans have the power in Congress and the Whitehouse, everything bad that happens is all the Republicans fault.

But when the Democrats have the power in Congress and the Whitehouse, everything bad that happens is still all the Republicans fault.

thats basically what this meatball is saying about California........Prop 13 was thought of by a Republican for what seemed a good idea for the Retirees,voted in by the electorate,who are mostly Democrats,and has been kept as law ever since by both parties in this State,including the MOSTLY Democratic citizens here......but the Republicans are the ones responsible for the States ills.....Star is just another die hard Lefty who cant imagine Democrats ever being part of a problem....